2012 PLP 240 (PLC)

GULZAR AHMED, J.

The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 29-5-2007 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the Labour Appeal filed by the respondent Habib Bank Limited (the Bank) was allowed and the impugned order of the Labour Court re instating the appellant with back benefits was set aside.

2. The brief facts of the matter are that the appellant was employed as Guard by the Bank in the year 1985. During such employment of the appellant, he applied for promotion to the Bank for Cashier and furnished the result sheet of intermediate examination showing that he has passed such examination. The Bank forwarded result sheet for verification to the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad. The Board informed the Bank that result sheet is a bogus document upon which the bank served a show-cause notice dated 17-1-1995 on the appellant. In response to the said show-cause notice, appellant through his letter dated 7-2-1995 submitted further documents i.e. certificate, marks-sheet and the letter dated 1-2-1995 of the Controller Examination, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad, which were again sent by the Bank for verification on which the Board Office vide letter dated 7-5-1995 informed that these three documents are also bogus. The Bank again issued show-cause notice dated 9-7-1995 to the appellant for furnishing bogus documents and committing fraud and dishonesty with the Bank. A regular inquiry was conducted in which the appellant was found guilty, upon which the service of the appellant was terminated vide letter dated 13-11-1995. Grievance petition of the appellant was allowed by the Labour Court, which by the impugned judgment of the learned Judge in Chamber of the High Court has been set aside.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the submission of bogus intermediate certificate by the appellant does not amount to misconduct under Standing Order 15(3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and thus the service of the appellant could not have been terminated. In support of his submission he has relied upon the case of Messrs Millat Tractors Limited v. Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore and 2 others (1996 SCMR 883). It was also contended by the learned counsel that in case the Court is not persuaded by this argument, in view of the fact that the appellant has long service with the respondent, some leniency be extended to him and his punishment be reduced.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents forcefully supported the impugned judgment and contended that furnishing of bogus academic documents for the purpose of gaining employment or for promotion is not only a serious misconduct but is also a crime which calls for taking of maximum action against an employee and in this respect relied upon the case of Anwar Ali and another v. Chief Executive Hesco (WAPDA) Hyderabad and others (2009 SCMR 1492).

5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. The Standing Order 15 provides for punishments. Sub-clause (3) of it defines acts and omissions which are to be treated as misconduct. Sub-clause (2) of this Standing Order lays down that a workman guilty of misconduct shall be liable to punishments and item (iv) of it provides dismissal without payment of any compensation in lieu of notice. The acts and omissions which are misconduct are enumerated in sub-clause (3) item (b) of it is "theft, fraud, dishonesty in connection with the employer's business or property". In our view, the acts and omissions of the appellant squarely falls within the above referred item (b) of sub-clause (3) of Standing Order 15 in that by producing bogus intermediate marks-sheet and certificate in the first place, the appellant has committed fraud and dishonesty and further by obtaining benefit on the basis of such marks sheet/certificate that of promotion to the post of Cashier in the Bank, the appellant again committed fraud and dishonesty in respect of the employer's business and property in that he procured for himself unlawful gain in the form of monetary benefits which amounts to defrauding the property of the employer. It may be noted that the business of the employer in the present case, which is of banking in substance includes all nature of transactions undertaken by the Bank inclusive of making employment, paying benefits and promoting employees. If any employee through fraudulent and dishonest means gains promotions in the Bank, the same will amount to commission of fraud and dishonesty in the business and with the property of the Bank and ultimately will fall within the mischief of item (b) of sub-cause (3) of Standing Order 15 which on being proved will render the employee to be dealt with punishment of dismissal from service.

6. The case of Millat Tractors Limited supra relied upon by the counsel for the appellant is based on the fact that at the time of employment the employee has submitted photocopy of matriculation certificate which was not genuine and his service was terminated. The Court came to the conclusion that there is nothing to show that during the course of his employment in the establishment the employee had committed any act of misconduct as defined under Standing Order

15. Although it is difficult for us to distinguish commission of fraud and dishonesty by the employee either in the beginning of his employment with the employer or during the course of his employment however, as the present case is distinguishable on facts in that the appellant has furnished bogus academic documents for getting promotion during the course of his employment with the Bank will squarely fall within the ambit of the provision of Standing Order 15(3)(b) and thus will render himself liable to be punished in term of sub-clause (2) item (iv) of Standing Order 15 that of dismissal from service without payment of compensation in lieu of notice.

7. We do not find any mitigating circumstances on the basis of which any lenient punishment may be substituted for in the case of Anwar Ali supra this Court has taken very serious exception to the employee submitting bogus academic certificates and have found it to be a case of gross misconduct and fraud meriting penalty of dismissal from service and has also recommended registration of criminal case. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in this appeal, which is hereby dismissed. M.W.A./M-28/SC Appeal dismissed.